MrDecent80

#signdigitalsovereigninfra $SIGN The dual namespace CBDC design of SIGN is something I've thought about several times before I figured it out.
The wholesale layer serves banks and large institutions, while the retail layer is for ordinary users, with the two namespaces operating separately.
When I first saw this design, I thought it was a bit redundant—why have two systems? Can't we just have one?
Then I considered the reality of the situation. The scale of transactions, compliance requirements, and risk levels in the wholesale layer are completely different from those in the retail layer. If they were mixed together, either the rules of the wholesale layer would crush the retail layer, or the flexibility of the retail layer would mess up the compliance of the wholesale layer. Having two separate namespaces allows each to operate according to its own logic without interference.
This design indicates that @SignOfficial is seriously considering "what problems a country's central bank will encounter when it actually uses this system."
Not all protocols think this way. Many protocols are designed with the mindset that "it can be technically achieved," but they haven't thought through "what questions the audit department will ask during government procurement." The dual namespace design precisely addresses the audit-level question of "how to achieve risk separation between wholesale and retail."
In the track of , only protocols that can answer audit-level questions can truly enter the sovereign procurement process. This is one dimension of my judgment regarding
What do you think about the dual namespace design? Do you feel that this separation misses anything?
$SIGN